Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor)

[eminence]

Decent kickoff to the series that outlines the things Ben values (team success, +/- type stuff, etc). Wish he'd given Oscar/West a bit more of a shoutout, though Russell/Wilt are nice as clear examples of his philosophy.

[DQuinn1575]

Here's a better question, how is it justifed to place russell's peak anywhere in arms reach of 40 win player when he was never able to lift the best supporting cast of the 60's past 63 wins?

I'm not sure if whatever version of the Celtics supporting cast was better than the Sixers team that won 68 games.
And two, by the mid 60s Russell had the six regular seasons with the most wins. He probably would have said that's enough.

[70sFan]

Here's a better question, how is it justifed to place russell's peak anywhere in arms reach of 40 win player when he was never able to lift the best supporting cast of the 60's past 63 wins?

I'm not sure if whatever version of the Celtics supporting cast was better than the Sixers team that won 68 games.
And two, by the mid 60s Russell had the six regular seasons with the most wins. He probably would have said that's enough.

As I said, Russell beat 63 wins pace mark three times in his career (1960, 1962, 1965) - season were just slightly shorter back then.

[eminence]

Here's a better question, how is it justifed to place russell's peak anywhere in arms reach of 40 win player when he was never able to lift the best supporting cast of the 60's past 63 wins?

I'm not sure if whatever version of the Celtics supporting cast was better than the Sixers team that won 68 games.
And two, by the mid 60s Russell had the six regular seasons with the most wins. He probably would have said that's enough.

As I said, Russell beat 63 wins pace mark three times in his career (1960, 1962, 1965) - season were just slightly shorter back then.

Just to note, '62 is not above 63 win pace.

[70sFan]

I'm not sure if whatever version of the Celtics supporting cast was better than the Sixers team that won 68 games.
And two, by the mid 60s Russell had the six regular seasons with the most wins. He probably would have said that's enough.

As I said, Russell beat 63 wins pace mark three times in his career (1960, 1962, 1965) - season were just slightly shorter back then.

Just to note, '62 is not above 63 win pace.

You're right, miscalculation.

[DQuinn1575]

On ElGee and portability: https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=1197767

He has a formula for combining portability with SIO into championship odds but the portability rating itself is not based on any formula. ElGee just slots players into one of five levels of offensive portability based on his own opinions. If the portability score could actually be calculated with a formula, it would be a continuous metric instead and there would be no need to approximate it with discrete tiers.

That's what I thought and one of my big problems with portability - you really can't say how well somebody will adapt to different situations - You never know what someone's going to to do, one guy will be stubborn and not learn, and Magic Johnson will increase his FT% by a tremendous amount.

[Jaivl]

I've been a bit dissappointed by the level of depth in today's video (well Friday's for me, I'm a patron), not gonna lie. He just handwaves away Chamberlain's non-scoring impact, and no mention at all of his peak season when everything clicked.

Edit; Taylor has his biases like any of us. I'm not putting him at fault for that. Don't get me wrong. What I don't like is, people tend to take his work as absolute and there are many people relying on his work, so I don't like that some of his work those are not so good get assumed good because it's Taylor.

This very thread is proof enough that... no, that does not happen. Fortunately.

[Owly]

Edit: There was an error in the Wilt vs Russell video. At 9:13, ElGee said "the year before Russell arrived, Boston had the worst defense in the league statistically, giving up an estimated 3 points more than league average." That should be 1955 not 1956, or two years before Russell arrived.

And at circa 1:36 citing Wilt playing every minute of every game in '62. Otoh, I had him missing circa 8 minutes. That fits with this

He played less than 48+ minutes only once (40 Minutes, Game #39) the entire season

Game #39 -- January 3rd, 1962: With 8 minutes 33 seconds remaining in the Warriors’ game against the Lakers in Los Angeles, referee Earl Strom gave Chamberlain a technical foul for complaining about a call. Chamberlain then “made reference to Earl Strom’s old mother,” according to Drucker’s report to the league, as cited in Gary M. Pomerantz’s book “Wilt, 1962” (2005).

When Chamberlain “yelled at Strom that he must be gambling on the game,” according to Drucker’s report, Earl slapped Chamberlain with a second technical, causing an automatic ejection. Drucker tacked on a third technical after “additional sequences of profane words” came from Chamberlain.

A similar account with the same totals is in Wilt: Larger than Life by Robert Cherry (p106)

Small, but he took himself out of the game by his behavior.

[ZeppelinPage]

About the same as what he outlined in his backpicks series for Wilt and Russell. Overall, I was expecting more in-depth analysis. I don't feel like anything in the video was necessarily new, just the same old arguments and narratives.

Not too surprised about the "This is what Wilt does bad and Russell does good" framework of the video--which feels very surface level. I tend to agree with Odinn21 about his biases.

[Owly]

Edit: There was an error in the Wilt vs Russell video. At 9:13, ElGee said "the year before Russell arrived, Boston had the worst defense in the league statistically, giving up an estimated 3 points more than league average." That should be 1955 not 1956, or two years before Russell arrived.

And at circa 1:36 citing Wilt playing every minute of every game in '62. Otoh, I had him missing circa 8 minutes. That fits with this

He played less than 48+ minutes only once (40 Minutes, Game #39) the entire season

Game #39 -- January 3rd, 1962: With 8 minutes 33 seconds remaining in the Warriors’ game against the Lakers in Los Angeles, referee Earl Strom gave Chamberlain a technical foul for complaining about a call. Chamberlain then “made reference to Earl Strom’s old mother,” according to Drucker’s report to the league, as cited in Gary M. Pomerantz’s book “Wilt, 1962” (2005).

When Chamberlain “yelled at Strom that he must be gambling on the game,” according to Drucker’s report, Earl slapped Chamberlain with a second technical, causing an automatic ejection. Drucker tacked on a third technical after “additional sequences of profane words” came from Chamberlain.

A similar account with the same totals is in Wilt: Larger than Life by Robert Cherry (p106)

Small, but he took himself out of the game by his behavior.

Oh and the measuring of "cast" by all-stars seems suggests a non-awareness of the "3 a team" cap. The 4 cited for LA '62 includes LaRusso a substitution for Baylor who was not expected to be available. When it transpired he was, LaRusso sat out. This per Robert Bradley (http://www.apbr.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4149).

Edit: Boston's 4 in '62 seems to be a result of an injury replacement (Jones in for Costello), whether rules bent because of short notice or the non-appeal of Syracuse's next guard (Bianchi?) to fill that spot, I don't know.

[Doctor MJ]

On ElGee and portability: https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=1197767

He has a formula for combining portability with SIO into championship odds but the portability rating itself is not based on any formula. ElGee just slots players into one of five levels of offensive portability based on his own opinions. If the portability score could actually be calculated with a formula, it would be a continuous metric instead and there would be no need to approximate it with discrete tiers.

That's what I thought and one of my big problems with portability - you really can't say how well somebody will adapt to different situations - You never know what someone's going to to do, one guy will be stubborn and not learn, and Magic Johnson will increase his FT% by a tremendous amount.

Hmm, so I'll say a few things:

On Portability vs Learning Ability:

1. You're specifically talking about the ability to learn and improve particular skills. I wouldn't call that portability, I'd call that a specific form of learning. While portability might imply a type of learning ability and things learned can improve portability, I want to make the distinction between the two concepts.

2. A key thing to understand is that some skills map on to portability better than others. In general, that's off-ball skill play. Can't have 5 guys who need the ball in their hand all the time to be effective. Ability to learn here is only relevant to the extent it allows you to pick up a new skill in your new environment that your coach finds valuable.

On Appropriate Avenues of Epistemology:

3. Front offices and coaching staffs are always trying to figure out who is coachable as well as make a connection that will allow a breakthrough in a player's basketball understanding. The fact they can't do it with 100% accuracy or effectiveness means little to them because their task is simply to do their best.

4. My perspective is that if those guys are going to try to figure out a thing, then it matters and I need to include it as best I can in my holistic assessment. I feel a more authentic meaning when I do it this way, and I think generally speaking it puts me closer to the truth than those who try to effectively ignore certain categories of knowledge in the name of neutrality. But, sometimes I am going to be wrong and I'll have to keep an open mind or I'll end up a fool diverging form reality.

On Thinking About Basketball:

5. Just on ElGee's use of "slots" here's what I'd say: Try to to think about this as a process by which he's systematically going through an analyzing each of these players, each season, and forcing himself commit to a quantification. The primary benefit as he was doing it, was not the number he assigned, but the basketball-thinking he had to do along the way.

6. And from there from a user end perspective, the question is really if you are game to a) learn from what he noticed and/or b) calibrate from his quantification. I'm both (a) and (b). It's fine to be (a) but not (b). It's also fine to be neither (a) nor (b) particularly if you can be respectful to the effort he put in and to those who like his work. Frankly I'd hope we're both most disturbed by the (b) but not (a), and there it's just important to remember that this is what always happens when things flow toward the mainstream from your bend of the river.

[DQuinn1575]

Edit: There was an error in the Wilt vs Russell video. At 9:13, ElGee said "the year before Russell arrived, Boston had the worst defense in the league statistically, giving up an estimated 3 points more than league average." That should be 1955 not 1956, or two years before Russell arrived.

And at circa 1:36 citing Wilt playing every minute of every game in '62. Otoh, I had him missing circa 8 minutes. That fits with this

He played less than 48+ minutes only once (40 Minutes, Game #39) the entire season

Game #39 -- January 3rd, 1962: With 8 minutes 33 seconds remaining in the Warriors’ game against the Lakers in Los Angeles, referee Earl Strom gave Chamberlain a technical foul for complaining about a call. Chamberlain then “made reference to Earl Strom’s old mother,” according to Drucker’s report to the league, as cited in Gary M. Pomerantz’s book “Wilt, 1962” (2005).

When Chamberlain “yelled at Strom that he must be gambling on the game,” according to Drucker’s report, Earl slapped Chamberlain with a second technical, causing an automatic ejection. Drucker tacked on a third technical after “additional sequences of profane words” came from Chamberlain.

A similar account with the same totals is in Wilt: Larger than Life by Robert Cherry (p106)

Small, but he took himself out of the game by his behavior.

Oh and the measuring of "cast" by all-stars seems suggests a non-awareness of the "3 a team" cap. The 4 cited for LA '62 includes LaRusso a substitution for Baylor who was not expected to be available. When it transpired he was, LaRusso sat out. This per Robert Bradley (http://www.apbr.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4149).

Edit: Boston's 4 in '62 seems to be a result of an injury replacement (Jones in for Costello), whether rules bent because of short notice or the non-appeal of Syracuse's next guard (Bianchi?) to fill that spot, I don't know.

Just watched video and posted same thing about all stars in comments. Gola and Costello both had ailments and were replaced by Jones and Johnny Green.

[Doctor MJ]

About the same as what he outlined in his backpicks series for Wilt and Russell. Overall, I was expecting more in-depth analysis. I don't feel like anything in the video was necessarily new, just the same old arguments and narratives.

Not too surprised about the "This is what Wilt does bad and Russell does good" framework of the video--which feels very surface level. I tend to agree with Odinn21 about his biases.

I see. I understand that criticism. It makes sense that that's how it struck you.

I would note that this prelude doesn't really fit with what a normal episode is going to look like. He'll be focusing on one player at a time. This first episode came out of the need to explain a criteria before the first player video, and setting it into the context of the Russell vs Wilt debate made a lot of sense on a few levels.

While the fact that this represents an argument for Bill Russell over Wilt Chamberlain is undeniable, and thus may have touched the 3rd rail for some, I'd say the intent was to give viewers a sense of method along with literal criteria setting the stage of what was to come.

Anyway, you might like the player videos to come better.

[eminence]

About the same as what he outlined in his backpicks series for Wilt and Russell. Overall, I was expecting more in-depth analysis. I don't feel like anything in the video was necessarily new, just the same old arguments and narratives.

Not too surprised about the "This is what Wilt does bad and Russell does good" framework of the video--which feels very surface level. I tend to agree with Odinn21 about his biases.

I see. I understand that criticism. It makes sense that that's how it struck you.

I would note that this prelude doesn't really fit with what a normal episode is going to look like. He'll be focusing on one player at a time. This first episode came out of the need to explain a criteria before the first player video, and setting it into the context of the Russell vs Wilt debate made a lot of sense on a few levels.

While the fact that this represents an argument for Bill Russell over Wilt Chamberlain is undeniable, and thus may have touched the 3rd rail for some, I'd say the intent was to give viewers a sense of method along with literal criteria setting the stage of what was to come.

Anyway, you might like the player videos to come better.

I'm with Doc here, this struck me as an intro showing us what Ben values with a cursory glance at two important historical players who deserve a mention in such a project even if they fall outside of the scope.

[Doctor MJ]

About the same as what he outlined in his backpicks series for Wilt and Russell. Overall, I was expecting more in-depth analysis. I don't feel like anything in the video was necessarily new, just the same old arguments and narratives.

Not too surprised about the "This is what Wilt does bad and Russell does good" framework of the video--which feels very surface level. I tend to agree with Odinn21 about his biases.

I see. I understand that criticism. It makes sense that that's how it struck you.

I would note that this prelude doesn't really fit with what a normal episode is going to look like. He'll be focusing on one player at a time. This first episode came out of the need to explain a criteria before the first player video, and setting it into the context of the Russell vs Wilt debate made a lot of sense on a few levels.

While the fact that this represents an argument for Bill Russell over Wilt Chamberlain is undeniable, and thus may have touched the 3rd rail for some, I'd say the intent was to give viewers a sense of method along with literal criteria setting the stage of what was to come.

Anyway, you might like the player videos to come better.

I'm with Doc here, this struck me as an intro showing us what Ben values with a cursory glance at two important historical players who deserve a mention in such a project even if they fall outside of the scope.

Cool.

I also hope him giving his reason for the merger cutoff was clear: He didn't feel he had the footage to do earlier players to the level he wanted to do them, so he's not. This wasn't him checking Russell & Wilt off of his list, his list starts next.

[sansterre]

My impression of the first episode was that it was much less of an actual entry in the series, and much more of an appetizer to introduce the methodology and priorities of the ensuing study (as Eminence suggested).

I found the second video considerably more comprehensive than the first, so I wouldn't worry too much about the first being a trend-setter or anything.

[freethedevil]

GOAT lists are literally subjective tho idk why people be complaining about that tho lol

someone could have elfird payton as their goat and idc as long as their analysis is interesting

People are complaining about his reaosning. Why are You complaining sir.

[freethedevil]

Here's a better question, how is it justifed to place russell's peak anywhere in arms reach of 40 win player when he was never able to lift the best supporting cast of the 60's past 63 wins?

1962 Celtics had 60-20 record, which equals 63 wins pace in 82 games schedule. Same with 1960 Celtics and 59-16 record (65 wins pace) and 1965 Celtics's 62-18 record (64 wins pace). So Russell actually led his team three time past 63 wins pace - you are wrong.

Another easy answer - in smaller league it's tougher to reach 63 and more wins:

There were 4 team which reached that level in the 1960s (1960/1962/1965 Celtics and 1967 Sixers).
There were 4 teams in the 1970s (1971 and 1972 Bucks, 1972 Lakers and 1973 Celtics).
There were 6 teams in the 1980s (1982 Celtics, 1983 Sixers, 1985 Celtics, 1986 Celtics, 1987 Lakers, 1989 Pistons).
There were 8 teams in the 1990s (1990 Lakers, 1991 Blazers, 1992 Bulls, 1994 Sonics, 1996 Bulls, 1996 Sonics, 1997 Bulls, 1997 Jazz).
There were 7 teams in the 2000s (2000 Lakers, 2006 Spurs, 2006 Pistons, 2007 Mavs, 2008 Celtics, 2009 Lakers and 2009 Cavs).
There were 6 teams in the 2010s (2013 Heat, 2015 Warriors, 2016 Warriors, 2016 Spurs, 2017 Warriors, 2018 Rockets).

If we count 60+ wins teams, the difference would be even larger.

"I said past" not "at" And i was specifcally referring _pace_. No it is not harder. That's a random thing you've pulled out of thin air. Just as there are less "weak" teams to beat up, there are less "strong teams" to lose to or not beat up by an impressive margin. Bill Russell's best teams never had to face the 09 celtics, the 09 magic, and the 09 lakers in one season, all teams that could easily be argued for against ANY team bill russell played the entireity of his career. There's absolutely zero reason to judge russell's team results on some sort of special curve. Realitive to era means realtive to era, not lets put everyone in the 60's higher just because.


Why is bill russell's peak "not close"? to Lebron's? Why is kareem's lower? The better questions is why either is close at all. Lebron went from a 40 win rs and then, even if we just cherrypick, his series against a magic team as good as ANYONE russell faced during the 60's firing on all cyllinders turning everything up.

He erased 3-4 dunks/layups a game, created 10 OC a game, scored about a smuch as jordan did against the 89 knicks, and did all of that with unrivalled effiency and turnover economy while holding all his perimiter matchups multiple points below their rs aerage whle they were red-hot elsewhere.

In 2015, he was going toe to toe with a team better than anyone russell ever led or faced with tristan thompson and 60 million dollars of cap space on the bench before tye pulled their 73 win trump card.

When has russell done anything remotely comparable? None of his teams posted regular seasons or playoffs above the 2020 lakers, and he faced one legit contender en route to the title which ranged from being as good as the 2020 thunder(hawks) to being as good as the 89 cavs(a team peak jordan was able to at least challenge on merit with the incredible services of baby grant and pippen). There is zero excuse for Russell not to be leading 91 bulls level teams season after season after season and yet he never even approached them once. He was repeatedly taken to game 7's by teams we wouldn't even consider "legit contenders" even if you literally just took their relative to era goodness and translated it to the modern game..


You think he should be rated comparably in terms ofon court lift to lebron or Jordan, then why don't you prove it? Because just about every team he's played on significantly underperformed what you would expect from a player allegedly so good.

68 and 69 are quite arguably the only times russell's lift resmebled that of an atg peak which isn't nearly enough if you're trying to argue he's comparable to lebron or jordan or even kareem on the court.

[70sFan]

"I said past" not "at" And i was specifcally referring _pace_.

Then you are wrong, because:

- 1960 Celtics finished at 64.5 wins pace (65.4 wins pace with Russell - he missed one game),
- 1962 Celtics finished at 61.5 wins pace, so below 63, but with they were at 64.7 wins pace with Russell.
- 1965 Celtics finished at 63.6 wins pace ( 64.1 wins pace with Russell - he missed two games).

You are wrong, because Celtics played above 63 wins pace with Russell in three different seasons. How can you argue that?

No it is not harder. That's a random thing you've pulled out of thin air. Just as there are less "weak" teams to beat up, there are less "strong teams" to lose to or not beat up by an impressive margin.

This is just an opinion that is not backed up with any facts. You want me to go deeper? Here are 60 (and more wins) pace teams per decade:

1950s: 3
1960s: 7
1970s: 9
1980s: 15
1990s: 21
2000s: 15
2010s: 16

You can see how big of an effect expansion really had in the 1990s, but it's clear that 60 wins teams are more common in bigger league than in smaller one. It's mathematical fact that bigger outliers are more likely in bigger populations.

Bill Russell's best teams never had to face the 09 celtics, the 09 magic, and the 09 lakers in one season, all teams that could easily be argued for against ANY team bill russell played the entireity of his career.

No team faced 2009 Celtics, 2009 Magic and 2009 Lakers all in 2009 season, so what's your point?

Russell faced 55 wins Sixers, 54 wins Knicks and 55 wins Lakers in 1969 playoffs.
He faced 62 wins Sixers and 52 wins Lakers in 1968 (healthy Lakers were much better than that).
He faced 50 wins Warriors and 55 wins Lakers in 1962 (in much smaller league).
He faced 54 wins Warriors and 50 wins Hawks in 1960 (in much smaller league).

The idea that Russell faced no competition is ridiculous.

There's absolutely zero reason to judge russell's team results on some sort of special curve. Realitive to era means realtive to era, not lets put everyone in the 60's higher just because.

It's not "just because" and if you don't understand that, then I suggest to take a few lessons from statistics.

Why is bill russell's peak "not close"? to Lebron's? Why is kareem's lower? The better questions is why either is close at all. Lebron went from a 40 win rs and then, even if we just cherrypick, his series against a magic team as good as ANYONE russell faced during the 60's firing on all cyllinders turning everything up.

2009 Magic certainly weren't on 1968 Sixers level.

He erased 3-4 dunks/layups a game, created 10 OC a game, scored about a smuch as jordan did against the 89 knicks, and did all of that with unrivalled effiency and turnover economy while holding all his perimiter matchups multiple points below their rs aerage whle they were red-hot elsewhere.

We don't have enough footage to make such detailed description of each of Russell's series, but he had a lot of amazing series in his career.

In 2015, he was going toe to toe with a team better than anyone russell ever led or faced with tristan thompson and 60 million dollars of cap space on the bench before tye pulled their 73 win trump card.

What makes 2015 Warriors better than 1967 and 1968 Sixers? Your opinion?

When has russell done anything remotely comparable? None of his teams posted regular seasons or playoffs above the 2020 lakers, and he faced one legit contender en route to the title which ranged from being as good as the 2020 thunder(hawks) to being as good as the 89 cavs(a team peak jordan was able to at least challenge on merit with the incredible services of baby grant and pippen).

Again, you forget about 1968 Sixers which were far better than either one you mentioned. Besides, 1969 run alone has two better teams than 1989 Cavs.

There is zero excuse for Russell not to be leading 91 bulls level teams season after season after season and yet he never even approached them once.

1960, 1962, 1964 and 1965 teams were among the best teams ever. It seems that you just judge teams by record, which is silly because of much different environment as I'm trying to tell you for a long time...
James didn't lead teams on 1991 Bulls level season after season either by the way.

He was repeatedly taken to game 7's by teams we wouldn't even consider "legit contenders" even if you literally just took their relative to era goodness and translated it to the modern game..

It happens. James quite a few series like that as well:

- 2012 vs Celtics which were 49 wins pace team,
- 2013 vs Pacers which were 49 wins pace team,
- 2018 vs Pacers which were 48 wins pace team.

With countless 6-games series that shouldn't have been that long.

You think he should be rated comparably in terms ofon court lift to lebron or Jordan, then why don't you prove it? Because just about every team he's played on significantly underperformed what you would expect from a player allegedly so good.

So far you didn't prove anything. You just talk a lot and make simple mathematical mistakes.
Wait, when did any of Russell's team underperformed? What are you talking about?
1968 and 1969 Celtics exceeded the expectations, so if anything his team got better results than their roster and record suggested.

68 and 69 are quite arguably the only times russell's lift resmebled that of an atg peak which isn't nearly enough if you're trying to argue he's comparable to lebron or jordan or even kareem on the court.

Yeah, 1960-64 period isn't all-time great level. I've heard it all

[Odinn21]

And this 1st episode is full of exactly what I was talking about.

1962 Chamberlain; 50.4 ppg season, then he took the Celtics, the more complete and the better team on overall, to a game 7 with 33.6 ppg.
If Chamberlain was a player like he's claiming, how the hell on earth Chamberlain didn't went for his usual average and didn't lose the series in 5?
How on earth the team survived an elimination game in which Chamberlain scored 32 points on 33.4 tsa, Arizin scored 28 points on 29.1 tsa, Meschery scored 27 points on 23.3 tsa. What a black hole! He gives up on his usual points to win... Tsk tsk...

Chamberlain's tsa went from 47.0 in regular season to 34.5 in the playoffs, and 32.6 against the Celtics.

Also, his per possession numbers overlook the part a player being human. Chamberlain averaged 50.4 ppg in 1962 seasons and played in all minutes. Let's pick a player that averaged 28.7 per75 and drop him in 1961-62 regular season if he could play in all minutes like Chamberlain did and would get 50+ points per game. The usage rates are more balanced in higher paces. The extra possessions between paces are distributed. Fatigue is a real factor. Attempting 25 shots in a 80 possession game and 37 shots in a 120 possession game is different.
And it was not like Chamberlain lacked athleticism. To this day, he's still one of the most athletic basketball players ever if not the most.

He also overlooked the part there are scenarios scoring volume is necessary. Saying Wilt's team offense improved when he started to shot less is flat out disrespectful to Hal Greer, Jerry West and Gail Goodrich. That statement like the offensive quality of Chamberlain's teams stayed stable over time... Chamberlain started to shoot less because his team had the luxury to be less dependant on his scoring volume. The point is to score, not to get better ORtg. Rtg numbers are measurement of efficiency, not actual on-court production.
This also applies to his favoured per poss approach.

Yeah, we're off to a rocky start...

Edit;
I know that the video is an intro. I don't see a reason to present Chamberlain in a way inaccurate manner to show he doesn't care about raw box score values.